Judgment

CHINNAPPA REDDY, J. :- These appeals by special leave of this court raise the same question and may, therefore, be disposed of by a common judgment. For the purpose of constructing godowns for the Central Warehousing Corporation and at the instance of the Corporation, the Collector, Khandwa District published a notification under S. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act proposing to acquire certain land belonging to the appellants. The declaration under S. 6 was duly made of the land was also taken from the appellants. The Collector made Awards under Sec. 11 of the land Acquisition Act in January and February, 1980 determining the compensation proposed to be paid to the appellants. The appellants sought references under S. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for enhancement of compensation and we are told, that the references are awaiting adjudication by the Civil Court. The Central Warehousing Corporation was also aggrieved by the amount of compensation determined by the Collector and sought a reference to the Civil Court under S. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for reducing the amount. The Collector rejected the request for making a reference on the ground that such a reference as was sought by the Central Warehousing Corporation was barred by the proviso to S. 50(2) of the Land Acquisition Act. Thereupon the Corporation filed writ petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh challenging the awards. The High Court set aside the awards and itself determined the compensation at a reduced rate. The erstwhile owners of the land have filed appeals after obtaining special leave from this court under Art. 136 of the Constitution.

2. The principal submission of tile learned counsel for the appellants was that the High Court was wholly in error in entertaining writ petitions to challenge Awards made by the Collector under the Land Acquisition Act on the ground that the amount awarded was excessive and that too not at the instance of the Government but at the instance of the Corporation at whose request the acquisition was made. The learned counsel argued that the Award of the Collector Constituted, in law, an offer by the Government to pay certain price for the land proposed to acquired. It was open to the person entitled to accept the determination by the Collector and receive the compensation or to object to the amount determined by the Collector and seek a reference to the Civil Court for proper determination of the compensation. The Award by the Collector being in the nature of an offer by the Collector, there would be no question of the Collector or the Government on whose behalf the acquisition was made challenging the award in any proceeding by way of reference to the Civil Court or otherwise. What the Government and the Collector were not entitled to do, obviously, the person at whose instance the acquisition was made would also not be entitled to do. We have no doubt about the correctness of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants.

3. Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act enables the Government, whenever land is needed for any public purpose or for a company to publish a notification to that effect in the official Gazette. After hearing objections or straightway, where such hearing is dispensed with on account of urgency, the Government is required by Sec. 6 of the Act to make a declaration that any particular land is needed for a public purpose or for a company. Thereafter the Collector is required to invite claims to compensation for all interests in such land. The Collector is then required by, Sec. 11 of the Act to enquire into the objections and the claims and determine and apportion the compensation by making an Award. A proviso added by way of an amendment in 1984 stipulates that no award shall be made by the Collector without the previous approval of the Government or of the officer authorised by the Government in that behalf. Section 18 enables any person interested